Judy asks:
5. Does the conformance model appear to be:
- clearly defined and implementable?
As is relatively clear from the number of Editorial notes scattered through
the conformance section, the WG is still struggling with the conformance
issue. I have not been following the technical discussion on conformance
closely, but I do have an opinion. It seems there is a requirement/wish
that conformance levels be machine codable in metadata. One of the
problems is how make such reporting simple when there may now be many
possible levels of compliance: Core-required plus random combinations of
Core-best practices, Extended-required, and Extended-best practices. To
me, this is not really much better than the P1, P2, P3 model. It is
possibly more complicated especially if the WG continues to try to give
page authors the ability to specify Core+n conformance. Some complicated
metadata scheme might work if someone builds a tool that generates the
required metadata from a checkpoint checklist. But would enough people use
such a tool to make it worthwhile? I will continue to provide a text
description of the accessibility features and conformance of a site, even
if I also include a conformance claim in metadata.
- clearly explained with respect to questions people may have regarding the
transition from WCAG 1.0 to 2.0?
I agree with Sailish... What I miss in this draft is any easy-to-understand
definition of what conforming at any level means to the user. Conformance
here is defined only in relation to the checkpoints themselves: you conform
at this level if you do this. With WCAG 1.0 it was comforting to know, for
instance, that if you take care of P1's you conform at Single A and if you
DON'T then this is the outcome. The up-front statement of outcomes is
missing in WCAG 2.0.
Chuck Letourneau
Starling Access Services
"Access A World Of Possibility"
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 2003-07-18